After documenting how Europeans (particularly the French) can be pro on legalizing sodomite and lesbian approximation of marriage while at the same time opposing sodomite and lesbian couples raising children one young R2K’er offers this gem,
“Do the French point the way to a potential compromise? Increasingly most Americans are loath to restrict gays and lesbians from exercising the same rights associated with their relationships that married couples have. Yet the most persuasive public arguments against gay marriage continue to revolve around the interests of children. The evidence is solid (though minimized, due to the politicization of the debate) that children do best when raised by two biological parents – both the father and the mother. Of course, as far as adoption is concerned such an ideal is unattainable. Nevertheless, as much as possible it can be approximated.”
1.) Apart from presupposing the God of the Bible and His special revelation by what standard do we adjudicate “best” as in, “that children do best when raised by two biological parents.”
2.) Apart from presupposing the God of the Bible and His special revelation why should anyone care about children at all? Apart from the God of the Bible and His special revelation why even think that a family consists of a Dad, Mom and children? Why not three Moms, two Dads and children? Why not five Moms and one Dad and children?
3.) Here is a article that contends that studies reveal that children who grow up with sodomite and lesbian parents do not suffer, in the least, when compared to children who grow up with heterosexually normal parents. I choose to believe this study over the R2K’er studies. How is his appeal to Natural law going to defeat my appeal to Natural law?
4.) Is this R2K’er suggesting that people have rights to sin? Is this R2K’ers saying that God’s Natural Law teaches that sodomites and lesbians have the same rights to the civil rights of marriage as a heterosexual man and woman? Where do these rights for sodomite and lesbian civil rights marriage come from for this R2K’er? If God’s Natural law and His revealed law both teach the same thing, where does this R2K’er get off suggesting that sodomites and lesbians have a right to civil rights marriage as long as they don’t corrupt (in his opinion) children?
“The issue here is not a matter of religious morality. Christian teaching, like that of other major religions, is as condemning of heterosexual immorality (i.e., sex outside of marriage, unnecessary divorce) as it is of homosexuality. But the French remind us that this is not really what the political debate should be about. It should be about children and the vital social role of the family.”
1.) So, children and the vital social role of the family is not about religious morality? If this isn’t about religious morality then who cares about children and vital social role of the family? Is our R2K’er saying that the matter of children and the vital social role of the family is not a religiously moral issue? I presume that our R2K’er is saying that protecting children and the vital social role of the family is a good thing. How can we know what a good thing is apart from religious morality. Or maybe he is saying that it is a good thing that protecting children and the vital social role of the family isn’t determined by religious morality? But how would we know that that it is a good thing that protecting children and the vital social role of the family isn’t determined by religious morality without some religious morality?
2.) This R2K’er commits the common R2K fallacy that somehow political debates are not at their core religious or theological debates. Notice how he assumes that we don’t have to deal with religious morality when we are in a political realm that is cordoned and sequestered from the theological or religious realm.
“The fact is, if America is ever to become serious about rebuilding the social fabric of marriage and the family, government and the various institutions of civil society will have to be much more proactive in reestablishing the link between marriage and the procreation and raising of children. Yet there is no reason why this has to require the restriction of the legal or civil rights of gays and lesbians, let alone a focus on matters pertaining to homosexuality. In reality, rebuilding a culture of marriage and fidelity would step on the toes of far more heterosexuals than of gays and lesbians. The question is, are we willing to place the interests of children back at the center of our public discussions of sexuality, marriage, and the family?
Perhaps the heirs of the French Revolution have something to teach us after all.”
1.) Again … where does Natural Law teach that sodomites and lesbian have a right to normalize and legalize their sin?
2.) Some studies are being released that suggest that children being intimate with adults is a healthy thing. Why not promote the interests of the children is this way?
A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”.
Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion “disturbing”, he was forced to recognise that “persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist”.
Obviously our R2K’er is allowing his religious bias to color his interpretation of Natural law.